a digital product firm

October 21st, 2009

Process 1.0

[Note: The title of this page ("Process") has a number after it to indicate that the way we talk about our process - and perhaps the process itself - will change over time.  We encourage you to put your thoughts, suggestions, questions, or challenges (be firm, but don't be a jerk) in the comments and let's discuss.  Periodically we'll incorporate changes into a new version of this document, and the process can begin again.  We're strong believers in learning and then doing better; here's a chance for you to participate in that process.]

We are not big believers in the Hail Mary pass as a strategy for success.

You have no doubt seen this in the form of the “big idea”. That idea that is so beautiful, if only because of its sheer magnitude, that whatever your goals are, they must surely come true.

Hail Mary passes may be fine when the risk is low or the project is small, but when you are spending real money, that’s a whole different game.

Our approach is to establish a solid foundation for the project, create an insightful strategy, outline an operationalizable roadmap, and then run the project in a series of iterations. At the beginning of each iteration, we do some bit of work with the express purpose of learning something specific from it. At the end of the iteration, we evaluate what was learned and adjust the strategy as necessary.

 Fight Process Overview

Each iteration tests a part of the strategy, and each iteration builds on the previous one, enabling the strategy to become more efficient at maximizing the goals of the project with every iteration.

Each iteration ends with a refined roadmap for moving the project forward, and an increasingly solid strategic case for doing so.

Rob (@RobAtFight)
  • http://www.thegood.com chris

    I love the theory, and love “operationalizable” as a term regardless if its unrecognized by dictionary.com.

    Toughest part is going to be convincing clients that have set project budgets, which is most all clients, that they need to parse out the budget in steps with room for adjustments.

    We preach similar strategies as well.

    Good luck, guys!

  • http://madebyfight.com Rob Shields

    Hi Chris,

    Dictionary.com doesn’t recognize “kubrickian” either, but that doesn’t stop me from using it much ;)

    We are certainly not opposed to uphill battles – it’s built right into our name!

    Our point of view is that if you’re going to spend a few hundred thousand on a microsite (say), then you should do everything possible to make sure you get the maximum effect; especially given the modern pace of change.

  • http://twitter.com/RobAtFight Rob (@RobAtFight)

    Hi Chris,

    Dictionary.com doesn’t recognize “kubrickian” either, but that doesn’t stop me from using it much ;)

    We are certainly not opposed to uphill battles – it’s built right into our name!

    Our point of view is that if you’re going to spend a few hundred thousand on a microsite (say), then you should do everything possible to make sure you get the maximum effect; especially given the modern pace of change.

  • http://www.thegood.com/ chris

    Speaking of kubrickian, you should definitely see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376543/ if you haven’t already. Malkovitch = hilarious.

    I agree with you on two points.

    1. Clients should do everything possible to make sure you get the maximum effect.
    2. We need to start charging several hundred thousand for microsites :)

  • http://www.thegood.com chris

    Speaking of kubrickian, you should definitely see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376543/ if you haven’t already. Malkovitch = hilarious.

    I agree with you on two points.

    1. Clients should do everything possible to make sure you get the maximum effect.
    2. We need to start charging several hundred thousand for microsites :)

  • http://www.freelance-zone.com/ J. Wallace

    I’m curious what rumblings are happening in the PR world based on the trends that seem to indicate mobile is the new Web 2.0. With the Apple Store’s change in policy to allow for-pay content from all comers (as opposed to subscriber-only models previously) and the rumors of an Apple iTablet, seems that mobile is being positioned to become the “new internet”.

    Is the axe at the root of the trees of what now passes as the traditional web? How does it change the game? Looks like mobile content is being positioned to be what websites are now, with Web 2.0 turning into a funnel for mobile.

    What’s the PR perspective? Is this a concern from your side of the table? Or do you see it as a parallel platform instead of an emerging dominant technology?

  • http://www.freelance-zone.com J. Wallace

    I’m curious what rumblings are happening in the PR world based on the trends that seem to indicate mobile is the new Web 2.0. With the Apple Store’s change in policy to allow for-pay content from all comers (as opposed to subscriber-only models previously) and the rumors of an Apple iTablet, seems that mobile is being positioned to become the “new internet”.

    Is the axe at the root of the trees of what now passes as the traditional web? How does it change the game? Looks like mobile content is being positioned to be what websites are now, with Web 2.0 turning into a funnel for mobile.

    What’s the PR perspective? Is this a concern from your side of the table? Or do you see it as a parallel platform instead of an emerging dominant technology?

  • http://www.thegood.com/ chris

    I love the theory, and love “operationalizable” as a term regardless if its unrecognized by dictionary.com.

    Toughest part is going to be convincing clients that have set project budgets, which is most all clients, that they need to parse out the budget in steps with room for adjustments.

    We preach similar strategies as well.

    Good luck, guys!

  • http://madebyfight.com Rob Shields

    I can't speak to the PR world specifically, as it's not what we think of ourselves doing. Given that traditional marketing and PR are continuing to converge (most obviously in the conversational web), we are actively trying to understand how the two relate, and whether or not they remain differentiable.

    Fight was established specifically to address the idea that the business-customer relationship is going to be continually changed as new tools become available, and new ways of thinking emerge from them (the iterative process above is just one example of how we are incorporating continual change into our thinking). We expect that the digital landscape will look different next year than it does this year, and that this will ever be the case.

    So it's not particularly surprising to watch the (somewhat painfully slow ;) separation of the Internet from the bulky, physically connected devices to which it was tethered for the first decade.

    I think it may be a bit off the mark, however, to think of mobile as the death of the “traditional web” for a couple of reasons.

    First, the concept of the “traditional web” is probably more of an ideal than anything that we've actually seen in recent memory. Certainly, the web has been mobile on smartphones for quite a few years now, both in raw form (through a browser) and filtered form (through apps). But then there are things like forums, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter (amongst many many others) that look decreasingly like what we originally thought of as the web (I publish, you read). The beauty of the Internet is that it has always been changing, and the web being just one part of it is no exception.

    Secondly, if you're looking at Apple's rumored tablet, then it might arguably look MORE like the “traditional web” owing to its screen size and likely robust browser capabilities.

    What is potentially more interesting is the fledgling augmented reality applications that do more than just bring your information with you, but overlay it on your world in real time.

    In any case, the end result of all of this is more opportunities for brands to add meaningful mutual value for them and their target audiences in more brand-specific/-appropriate ways.

    What that means for PR I don't yet know. Do you have thoughts on this?

  • http://madebyfight.com Rob Shields

    I can't speak to the PR world specifically, as it's not what we think of ourselves doing. Given that traditional marketing and PR are continuing to converge (most obviously in the conversational web), we are actively trying to understand how the two relate, and whether or not they remain differentiable.

    Fight was established specifically to address the idea that the business-customer relationship is going to be continually changed as new tools become available, and new ways of thinking emerge from them (the iterative process above is just one example of how we are incorporating continual change into our thinking). We expect that the digital landscape will look different next year than it does this year, and that this will ever be the case.

    So it's not particularly surprising to watch the (somewhat painfully slow ;) separation of the Internet from the bulky, physically connected devices to which it was tethered for the first decade.

    I think it may be a bit off the mark, however, to think of mobile as the death of the “traditional web” for a couple of reasons.

    First, the concept of the “traditional web” is probably more of an ideal than anything that we've actually seen in recent memory. Certainly, the web has been mobile on smartphones for quite a few years now, both in raw form (through a browser) and filtered form (through apps). But then there are things like forums, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter (amongst many many others) that look decreasingly like what we originally thought of as the web (I publish, you read). The beauty of the Internet is that it has always been changing, and the web being just one part of it is no exception.

    Secondly, if you're looking at Apple's rumored tablet, then it might arguably look MORE like the “traditional web” owing to its screen size and likely robust browser capabilities.

    What is potentially more interesting is the fledgling augmented reality applications that do more than just bring your information with you, but overlay it on your world in real time.

    In any case, the end result of all of this is more opportunities for brands to add meaningful mutual value for them and their target audiences in more brand-specific/-appropriate ways.

    What that means for PR I don't yet know. Do you have thoughts on this?

blog comments powered by Disqus